P. R., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the evidence presented failed to negate any reasonable hypothesis of innocence regarding the juvenile's theft charge.
A juvenile was observed selecting merchandise with others and proceeding to checkout where the cashier did not ring up all items. The juvenile testifi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Reasonable Hypothesis Of Innocence cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
The order of the trial court withheld adjudication of delinquency and placed appel lant under the supervision of a community control program for theft of property from The Treasury department store. We hold the evidence failed to negate any reasonable hypothesis of innocence and reverse.
Testimony at the adjudicatory hearing disclosed that P. R., a juvenile, was observed by the store’s security officer when she and three other young women selected a quantity of merchandise without regard to size or price, placed the items in a shopping cart, and took them to a cash register to check out. The cashier then checked through more merchandise than she rang up. The register tape reflected that payment of $40.00 had been tendered, and change of $14.10 had been returned. The tape total was $25.86 for merchandise valued in excess of $200.00.
The evidence did not disclose that appellant was aware that not all the items were rung up on the register or that payment covered only a portion of the merchandise. No evidence connected appellant with any scheme or plan, or controverted her testimony that although she accompanied and assisted one of the young women, she did not notice the cashier’s actions or the amount paid.
Appellant’s criminal intent was sought to be proved by circumstantial evidence. “Circumstantial evidence is proof of certain facts and circumstances from which the trier of fact may infer that the ultimate facts in dispute existed or did not exist.. .. ” Davis v. State, 90 So. 2d 629, 631 (Fla.1956). Circumstantial evidence must be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Thomas v. State, 374 So. 2d 508 (Fla.1979); Davis v. State, supra; Redding v. State, 357 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). That standard was not met. We therefore reverse the trial court’s decision and discharge defendant.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
J. L. B. v. State, 396 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…e, and ran off after it occurred. This is simply insufficient to establish the overt assistance or participation which is required to justify an adjudication as an aider and abettor. D. M. v. State, 394 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); P. R. v. State, 389 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); J. O. v. State, 384 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); J. H. v. State, supra (alternative holding), and cases cited. Under the law we are bound to apply, see, D. M. v. State, supra; Ruiz v. State, 388 So. 2d 610, 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 198…
-
Tien Wang v. State, 426 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…29, 631-32 (Fla.1956) (citations omitted). When, as here, the intent of an accused is sought to be established by the actions of the accused, the circumstantial evidence rule applies. See McArthur v. State, 351 So. 2d 972 (Fla.1977); P.R. v. State, 389 So. 2d 1078 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Gellman v. State, 371 So. 2d 181 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); K.W.U. v. State, 367 So. 2d 647 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 378 So. 2d 349 (Fla.1979). In Febre v. State, 158 Fla. 853, 30 So. 2d 367 (1947), the accused, in the throes of divor…
-
E.H. v. State, 452 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…nse — the mugging of a patron as he emerged from a bar in Miami — which was actively committed by two young men, it was contended only that she had aided and abetted their crime. E.g., D.M. v. State, 394 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); P.R. v. State, 389 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). In this regard, although E.H. drove one of the robbers to the scene of the crime and picked them both up afterwards, these naked facts are plainly circumstantially insufficient, even absent her uncontradicted denial from the witn…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hoyt Dan Davis v. State, 90 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1956)
- Thomas v. State, 374 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1979)
- Membery v. Hammac, 357 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)